Let me make sure I get it, This will not NAT all of the items going out
from the REGGIE_STATIC_HOSTS network object group?

Right. Anything sourced "within" the reggie segment that matches
that ACL will be exempt from NAT.

Does this automatically setup the inbound translations also?

Supressing some unimportant semantic quibbles, Yes, exactly. Any
connection heading into a lower-security interface that matches the
"reverse" of the ACL (i.e, exchange source and destination fields)
will be permitted inward, provided that the access-group on that
lower interface permits that flow. It -is- a form of "static"
for that purpose.

There is, though, the side effect that proxy arp will not be enabled
for the IPs (not unless there is a regular static for that IP),
so your WAN router will have to route those IPs to the outside IP
of the PIX. This is usually not a problem unless you happen to have
real hosts on the outside segment.

Thank you, I really appreciate this, I feel like an idiot since I've
been using the conduits and stuff for so long.

Even the TAC ends up scratching their head over bidirectional policy NAT.
Some stuff just isn't well documented.

Some ACL and translation fundamentals:

Each ACL should be written in terms of the IPs that would be in
the packet at the time the PIX receives the packet. e.g., an
ACL applied to an inside interface would have the internal IPs as
the source and the outside IPs *as known to the inside* as the
destinations.

Translation takes place -after- the interface controls have decided
to accept the packet, based upon the ACL applied to the interface
(or upon the default flow rules if there is no ACL.) But
that's the rule for when the translation is actually performed:
before the ACL is even looked at, the PIX checks to see that
there a translation exists. Thus if a new connection attempt hits
your outside interface and is addressed to a public IP that
you do not have a "static" or "nat 0 access-list" for, then
the packet will be dropped with a log entry about
"no translation group" and only if there is a translation can
you go on to "denied by access-list". {It wasn't that way before 6.2,
and they might have modified this by now, as I griped about this.}
The modification of packet content happens after the packet has been
accepted as having a translation and satisfying the security policies.

The default rules, if you have no ACL applied to an interface,
are that traffic to lower-security is allowed and to higher security
is not allowed. If you do have an ACL, then that rule does not
apply at all, and instead the rule becomes "anything which is
not permitted by the ACL is not allowed."

An important difference you will hit is that "conduit" applies
to all interfaces, but the access-group command applies an ACL
only to one interface. So before if you had a conduit that
permitted traffic to something in your highest security zone,
then you will need an ACL for each of the lower security zones
if you want them to be able to reach that higher security zone.

Only one ACL is permitted "in" per interface. PIX 7.x adds
ACLs "out" an interface, and modifies to "one per direction".

Never try to use the same ACL for two purposes. If you have two controls
mention the same ACL name/number then you will likely have
odd problems.

An ACL applied to an interface should refer to the private IP of a
host on a lower security security interface, but to the public IP
of a host on a higher security interface. Of course if you have
used nat 0 access-list or static'd IPs to themselves between
a pair of interfaces, then the public and private IP would be the same
for that transaction.

Only one "nat 0 access-list" is permitted per interface, and it
applies to traffic going to lower security interfaces. Indefinite
numbers of "nat 0" (without access-list) are permitted per interface,
and again apply to towards all lower security interfaces.
"static" and all other "nat" commands work between pairs of interfaces,
so the IP of an inside host as known to dmz1 could be different than
the IP of the same host as known to dmz2.

Access-lists mentioned in crypto map (VPN) "match address" clauses
should be written from the perspective of packets going out
the interface that the crypto map is applied to. But unlike the
other cases, the "match address" ACLs must be written in
terms of what would be in the packet *after* translation
(towards the outside). For incoming VPN packets, the
"match address" ACL will automatically be read "in reverse"
[like for the nat 0 access-list case], and the addresses used
to check will be the ones after decapsulation but before any
translation.

An incoming VPN packet will be decapsulated, and the inner packet first
checked against the {implicitly reversed} appropriate "match address"
ACL. After that, the inner packet will be checked against the ACL (or
default policy) for the interface it was received on, -unless- "sysopt
connection permit-ipsec" or similar has been turned on: If you use
those commands, then all VPN packets that manage to make it to you will
be permitted to go to any destination (except on the -same- interface)
without any checking of access policies.

Similarily, an outgoing VPN packet will be checked first against the
security policy of the interface it was received on, *unless* "sysopt
connection permit-" is in effect and the packet would go out over the
VPN -- those packets will go through even if the security policy says
to block them. After the outgoing VPN packet is accepted by the
interface, it undergoes translation, and the -translated- packet will
be compared against the "match address" ACLs for dispatching.
.

Relevant Pages

Re: Questions on "sysopt connection permit-ipsec"...:interface enabled for IPSEC, say the outside interface: ... :even if the outside interface ACL does not explicitly allow for it. ...:access-list ipsectraffic permit tcp host 10.1.1.3 any ... When an IPSec packet is received and successfully decoded, ...(comp.dcom.sys.cisco)

Re: Access list question... So if no ACL is present and it is specified on the interface then all ... In this case are the "access-group 105" commands ignored if ... order of packet processing as it pertains to the flow of an IP packet ...(comp.dcom.sys.cisco)

RE: [fw-wiz] PIX question... Does an ACL applied to a dmz interface have ... an implied deny all - even for lower security interfaces?... Only when no ACL is set, an implicit allow any any to lower ...(Firewall-Wizards)

Re: [fw-wiz] PIX question... You have an internet-in ACL on the outside interface.... NOT talk to anything on the internet - gets denied by dmz2-in ACL.... traffic to the outside interface with a lower security setting?...(Firewall-Wizards)

RE: Intrusion Prevention requirements document... The tools consider one interface as "client" and other ...Packet 1 is first sent out on client interface. ... > my previous company was Blade Software where I developed IDS Informer... Up to 75% of cyber attacks are launched on shopping carts, ...(Pen-Test)